A Patent Granting Milestone

Today, the USPTO issued its 168,000th utility patent of calendar year 2010. I highlight that milestone because it surpasses the 167,350 mark for the entire 2009 calendar year. At the current pace, I project that the USPTO will grant at least 33% more utility patents in 2010 than it did in 2009 (36% more is a better estimate). The high-water mark for USPTO patent grants is 2006 — that year, the office issued 173,772 utility patents. At the current 2010 pace, that mark will be passed in the next two weeks.

This dramatic increase in the rate of granting patents is impressive — especially in light of the fact that during this time, the USPTO eliminated examiner overtime hours for an extended period of time and hired only a handful of new examiners.

BTW Cy, why would a company lay off 600 people when they just acquired the exclusive rights to a process that will help them make more money? Seems to me they would not only keep those 600 but hire more to produce more products for more profit. Now that might make Malcolm run screaming naked in the rain but it would make a CEO very happy!

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Don’t be upset, you will always lose in the land of the Actual Inventer (cause it be next to the land of IMHO-Ned law), and such places always abide by the maxim of always declaring victory no matter what really happens.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

“So what do you do when you have no logic, fact, and reason with which to debate?”

Nah, that’s just icing on the cake.

Ya might just realize that if ya bothered to read what I wrote, instead of just getting defensive. Iza not be saying anything about your sacred jobs position. Iza only be saying that your use of “trade secret” terminology just might be problematic.

I really don’t care if you spit into the wind, but your insistence that everything ya write is correct reminds me O the people that ya battle with. Spit away, Actual Spitter.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

“To understand what’s being argued in the first place before drawing any mistaken conclusions”

Hey Actual Wackjob, I just just pointing out (since you are obviously not a patent pro) that ya gonna have problems with your so called Trade Secret based on the fact that you entered a program that will culminate in publishing of that “secret”.

_________

It stings eh Dear Ping? Cy, rather than face he had lost a debate tried to start an irrelevant argument about Chinese stealing an Actual Inventor’s process patent, once it was published. But of course that argument has no bearing on and does nothing to discredit the FACT that every patent earned by a “new” entrepreneur creates at least one “new” job”.

You pick up Cys argument and paddle further out to sea only to realize you too made a foolish mistake and don’t have an intellectual paddle to get back to shore with.

So what do you do when you have no logic, fact, and reason with which to debate?

AD HOMINEM ATTACK !!!

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

“To understand what’s being argued in the first place before drawing any mistaken conclusions”

Hey Actual Wackjob, I just just pointing out (since you are obviously not a patent pro) that ya gonna have problems with your so called Trade Secret based on the fact that you entered a program that will culminate in publishing of that “secret”.

Not sure if ya want to start enterin inta contracts and license arrangements that will either kill your trade secret, abrogate your patent or both.

But ya can always do that and still call it a win if ya like.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Dear Ping:It be far better to just fess up to making a mistake than making another mistake in trying to cover up the first mistake.

Posted by: ping | Oct 10, 2010 at 07:42 PM

__________

You know what’s even better than that? To understand what’s being argued in the first place before drawing any mistaken conclusions. Here, let me break it down for ya.

If an Actual Inventor has a Pat. Pend. thats kept as trade secret, and of course is not published, ( didn’t know I needed to point that out to a blog of patent pros) then there is no threat from the big, bad, Chinese boogey man of Cy’s nightmares stealing the invention.

And of course the fact remains, that every patent earned by a “new” entrepreneur creates at least one “new” job”.

To Wint and Cy, here is is some friendly advice, if ya don’t wanna lose a debate to an Actual Inventor, then you best not debate one. 😀

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Like I says – wasn’t me – not this ping. There may be another posing as me giving you copyright advise, but I am not he. As usual, the first rule of thumb is protect yourself.

AI,

I think ya gonna have a problem, even with a patent pending. First Iza (za za za) am thinking that you mean both patent pending and non-publication requested, dontcha?

Second, you know ya can’t get damages until after ya get a patent right? And then that blows your trade secret right? Also, there is a colorable argument that you failed the trade secret route by filing for patent, cause the publication would be an eventual outcome, which violates your trade secret requirements.

It be far better to just fess up to making a mistake than making another mistake in trying to cover up the first mistake. Ya look downright silly and outa your league.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Okay so if the real Crime is the case of the disappearing Design Patent, followed by the Case of the blue eyed baby. then why was Ping so adament of getting me to sign on to copy right problems?
No matter how I tried to get Hal to be upfront. he wouldn’t. This is a matter of the USPTO hiding my so called Design Patent for the LIAR Wenzel. This is all about RICO. And Ping was paid to confuse me. But, instead I am now down to the core issue. Only the USPTO can erase a Patent and list two that are mine to confuse me, but not the one I was truly given along with a fifteen year Sentance to protect a Liar.
And then after all that has been done to me. you have the Audacity to continue to threaten Jail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Thus forcing your old employer to lay off another 600 workers, while that Chinese company, which really doesn’t care about your US process patent, increases its imports.

You Gottta Love It! 😀

Posted by: Cy Nical | Oct 09, 2010 at 10:37 PM

________

Then those 600 workers can get trained by Obama’s Inventors Jobs Act, and start their own companies built around their own process patents! Thats the great thing about the qaumtum age of universal wealth, everyone can get rich! It’s awesome baby!!!

Obama are you listening???

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

You provided two examples of how you failed to help your clients. And while that may be sufficient evidence you are incompetent at your job, it in no way changes are discredits the fact that every patent earned by a “new” entrepreneur creates at least one “new” job”.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Imagine an entire nation of those new entrepreneurs licensing out their newly earned patented inventions and earning royalties!

I propose we make this full-employment-by-patent-issuance idea a four-year program. Let’s keep our goals modest – we’ll only seek to “newly” employ the unemployed – no “new” jobs for those who are already employed. So, we need about 14.8 million new patents issued over the next 4 years – a mere 1750% increase over the current rate.

6, you better plan on working Saturday nights as well.

Posted by: Cy Nical | Oct 09, 2010 at 09:16 AM

In the program there needs to be training for these unemployed to develop and exploit their imaginative creative genius. I think we should especially encourage innovations in processes that can improve quality, reduce cost and save time and money in industry.

Someone working on the assembly line in an auto plant for 20 years must have had plenty of great ideas for improvement but never had anyone encourage the development of those ideas let alone listen to them.

And it probably never crossed their minds they could get a process patent. Yup we need to teach them to reduce their new, novel ideas to practice and apply them to specific tasks and file for process patents!

What sweet revenge too. To come up with a better way to do the job you were laid off from and force your old employer to pay you millions to use it!

You Gottta Love It! 😀

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Example 1: My firm represents an independent inventor who has a day job as an artist. Her invention is unrelated to her job. She applied for a patent directed to her invention over 4 years ago. Her application finally issued as a patent in July. To date, she has not sold one product directed to her invention, and despite her and our efforts, she has not been able to license out her patent since it issued. She still has her regular job as an artist, and I am unaware of any “new” job that she may have.

Example 2: My firm also represents a former engineering consultant turned entrepreneur. He started his company only last year, which in my mind qualifies him as a “new” entrepreneur. His invention is currently a top seller in shopping malls across the country. He and his coinventors filed a utility patent application directed to his invention in early 2009 before he started his company. The application will not likely see an Office Action until the summer of 2011. In the meantime, his invention is under no patent protection, and he’s still President of his company. If and when the patent application is allowed and a patent issues, his job as President of his company will likely not change, despite his status as a “new” entrepreneur.

I believe that this is sufficient evidence to refute AI’s claim.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Hey, I just had a patent issue in my name this past week. “New” job for me! YAY!!!

Posted by: Cy Nical | Oct 09, 2010 at 09:10 AM

________

It’s truly the greatest job in the world isn’t? A business of signatures and agreements that bring multIple streams of royalty income all while you sleep, eat, and make love. Which reminds me. Its time for pancakes and a nice nap on the beach. 😀

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Hey, I just had a patent issue in my name this past week. “New” job for me! YAY!!!

Posted by: Cy Nical | Oct 09, 2010 at 09:10 AM

________

YAY!!! Cy!!! Congrats! Now go Inc and begin the licensing process, or if your patented new process, composition and/or thing, or new use thereof gives you an advantage over the competition just start clobbering the *& ^% and get rich! God I love America! 😀

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

AI: True, but that does not change the fact that every patent earned by a “new” entrepreneur creates at least one “new” job”.

Willton: What “new” job?

AI: For starters the new job of Chairman/Chairwoman, CEO, President, or Sole Proprietor of the business built around the earned patent.

Willton: What job does the new entrepreneur have after obtaining the patent that he or she did not have prior to obtaining the patent?

AI: For starters the new job of Chairman/Chairwoman, CEO, President, or Sole Proprietor of the business built around the earned patent.

Ah, so you’re making a giant assumption that a “new entrepreneur” is one that has a “business built around the earned patent”. In that case, you have a very narrow definition of “new entrepreneur.” Most entrepreneurs I know have businesses that do not require the ownership of a patent in order to survive. In fact, I would say that the entrepreneurs whose businesses sink or swim based on the ownership of a patent likely have bad business models.

Willton: What magical power does this patent have that causes a new job to materialize?

AI: Patents don’t have magical powers Wilton so that question is a strawman argument.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Actually, it’s not even an argument, let alone a strawman. It’s a hyperbolic statement that points out the lunacy of your purported “fact” that “every patent earned by a new entrepreneur creates at least one new job”.

Willton: A non-entrepreneur does not magically become a “new” entrepreneur by virtue of obtaining a patent.

AI: Umm, okay but that statement does not address the original argument which makes said statement a classic non sequitur.

Willton: Likewise, an entrepreneur does not gain his title by having a patent, and nor does the patent give him a new title.

AI: Umm, oooookay but once again that statement does not address the original argument which makes said statement a classic non sequitur.

Willton: A patent merely gives the new entrepreneur a right to exclude, with which he may drive out competitors.

AI: Ummmm riiiiight, but once again that statement does not address the original argument which makes said statement a classic non sequitur. Do you see a pattern emerging here Willton?

I do: I’m asking you to explain or defend your “fact,” and you’re being evasive. It appears that you are unable to support your own purported “fact,” so instead you dodge the question by calling my statements non sequiturs.

Willton: A patent is not the key to starting a business; a business model is. A patent may be helpful in strengthening a business, and the business model may utilize patents, but the business model itself must come first. It is the business model, not the patent, that creates the “at least one new job” for an entrepreneur.

AI: The above theory and conclusion does not logically address the original argument and therefore in it’s totality is a mother of all non sequiturs!! In beginners terms. I did not address or argue for or against your statement, theory and conclusion and it’s therefore all irrelevant. :-/

Then you’re clearly missing the point. You claim that every time a new entrepreneur obtains a patent, the new entrepreneur therefore obtains a new job. I am telling you that you are wrong. Patents are only circumstantially related to creating new jobs, even when said patents are in the hands of new entrepreneurs. Business models are the true vehicle for creating new jobs for entrepreneurs.

Willton: Stop claiming to speak of “facts”.

AI: But I have stated a fact that has never been successfully refuted by anyone on this blog therefore the fact remains, that every patent earned by a “new” entrepreneur creates at least one “new” job”.

If you honestly believe that your statement is a fact, then I suggest that you come up with some evidence to support this “fact.”

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Imagine an entire nation of those new entrepreneurs licensing out their newly earned patented inventions and earning royalties!

I propose we make this full-employment-by-patent-issuance idea a four-year program. Let’s keep our goals modest – we’ll only seek to “newly” employ the unemployed – no “new” jobs for those who are already employed. So, we need about 14.8 million new patents issued over the next 4 years – a mere 1750% increase over the current rate.

6, you better plan on working Saturday nights as well.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

ANON: Just because a patent takes money to obtain does not make it an expense. A patent is an asset.

IANAE: It’s both, actually. But unless your business is licensing out patented technology, that patent didn’t create your business or anybody’s job.

AI: Right, because licensing out patented technology IS making sales, and making sales is what makes you truly a business/entrepreneur with a job. No sales, no pay, no job! Which just goes to underscore the FACT that every patent earned by a “new” entrepreneur creates at least one “new” job”.

Imagine an entire nation of those new entrepreneurs licensing out their newly earned patented inventions and earning royalties! New jobs for everyone, YAY!!! What a wonderful day that would be 😀

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

AI: True, but that does not change the fact that every patent earned by a “new” entrepreneur creates at least one “new” job”.

Willton: What “new” job?

AI: For starters the new job of Chairman/Chairwoman, CEO, President, or Sole Proprietor of the business built around the earned patent.

Willton: What job does the new entrepreneur have after obtaining the patent that he or she did not have prior to obtaining the patent?

AI: For starters the new job of Chairman/Chairwoman, CEO, President, or Sole Proprietor of the business built around the earned patent.

Willton: What magical power does this patent have that causes a new job to materialize?

AI: Patents don’t have magical powers Wilton so that question is a strawman argument.

Willton: A non-entrepreneur does not magically become a “new” entrepreneur by virtue of obtaining a patent.

AI: Umm, okay but that statement does not address the original argument which makes said statement a classic non sequitur.

Willton: Likewise, an entrepreneur does not gain his title by having a patent, and nor does the patent give him a new title.

AI: Umm, oooookay but once again that statement does not address the original argument which makes said statement a classic non sequitur.

Willton: A patent merely gives the new entrepreneur a right to exclude, with which he may drive out competitors.

AI: Ummmm riiiiight, but once again that statement does not address the original argument which makes said statement a classic non sequitur. Do you see a pattern emerging here Willton?

Willton: A patent is not the key to starting a business; a business model is. A patent may be helpful in strengthening a business, and the business model may utilize patents, but the business model itself must come first. It is the business model, not the patent, that creates the “at least one new job” for an entrepreneur.

AI: The above theory and conclusion does not logically address the original argument and therefore in it’s totality is a mother of all non sequiturs!! In beginners terms. I did not address or argue for or against your statement, theory and conclusion and it’s therefore all irrelevant. :-/

Willton: Stop claiming to speak of “facts”.

AI: But I have stated a fact that has never been successfully refuted by anyone on this blog therefore the fact remains, that every patent earned by a “new” entrepreneur creates at least one “new” job”.

Willton: You’re merely spouting theories, and faulty ones at that.

AI: Actually your entire statement in this post is a theory and whether its faulty or not is irrelevant since your theory is a…….

drum roll please….

you guessed it!

NON SEQUITUR!!

Please don’t feel bad or get frustrated Willton. See we already had this debate long ago and the Actual Inventors won. And as IANAE will tell you, we always win 😀

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

AI: True, but that does not change the fact that every patent earned by a “new” entrepreneur creates at least one “new” job”.

What “new” job? What job does the new entrepreneur have after obtaining the patent that he or she did not have prior to obtaining the patent? What magical power does this patent have that causes a new job to materialize?

The answer is none. A non-entrepreneur does not magically become a “new” entrepreneur by virtue of obtaining a patent. Likewise, an entrepreneur does not gain his title by having a patent, and nor does the patent give him a new title. A patent merely gives the new entrepreneur a right to exclude, with which he may drive out competitors.

A patent is not the key to starting a business; a business model is. A patent may be helpful in strengthening a business, and the business model may utilize patents, but the business model itself must come first. It is the business model, not the patent, that creates the “at least one new job” for an entrepreneur.

Just because a patent takes money to obtain does not make it an expense.

A patent is an asset.

It’s both, actually. But unless your business is licensing out patented technology, that patent didn’t create your business or anybody’s job.

The real non sequitur is AI’s connection between the patent and the “new job”. People aren’t waiting on patent grants to start their businesses, and in any event the lack of a patent isn’t stopping them. All he did was define an “entrepreneur” as “a person who creates a job for himself when he gets a patent” and “new job” as “a job that’s created by an entrepreneur after getting a patent”. That means his statement is pretty obviously true, and just as obviously pointless, because (1) his definition excludes all the useless patents that don’t create or help any jobs or businesses, (2) it still doesn’t mean the “entrepreneur” is making any money from the company he created, just that he’s busy, and (3) for all we know his definition might not include any patents at all, in which case we’d be looking at exactly zero jobs created.

But it don’t think it counts with the BLS if you don’t earn an income/produce revenue.

Ah, you’ve finally spotted the problem.

A patent isn’t revenue either. It’s an expense. The same person could start the same business with or without the patent. All of your logic applies just as well if you replace “patent” with “parking ticket”. It’s simply an elaborate statement that everybody who starts their own business has something to do.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

IANAE I can incorporate a dozen companies this afternoon and create a dozen new “jobs” for myself.

AI: On paper yes. But it don’t think it counts with the BLS if you don’t earn an income/produce revenue.

IANAE: I don’t even need a single patent to do it.

AI: True, but then you would not be earning money from a job as the result of earning a patent.

IANAE: Getting a patent would probably be a distraction and an unnecessary expense anyway.

AI: Maybe for you. But for the new entrepreneur, that earned a patent and built a business around it, and thus created at least one new job for him/herself and possibly others, it would be a pure delight!

IANAE: Why hasn’t Obama thought of this?

AI: Because I already did? Although i hope and pray for all our sakes that he and/or his people take this idea and run with it as fast as possible. Remedial class dismissed for you IANAE. Next?

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Willton: Back up. When did “every patent earned by a new entrepreneur creates at least one new job” become a fact? Last I checked, one did not need a patent in order to be an entrepreneur.

AI: True, but that does not change or discredit said fact. Next?

Yes it does. The entrepreneur would be an entrepreneur regardless of whether he obtained a patent or not. A patent is not a magical key that allows an entrepreneur to start selling stuff; all it does is allow the entrepreneur to stifle competition with regard to a particular invention. If the person was an entrepreneur before the patent, then no new job has been created by virtue of him receiving a patent.

Willton: I also know that even a new entrepreneur can obtain multiple patents that do not affect said entrepreneur’s ability to employ people.

AI: True, but that does not change the fact that the new entrepreneur created at least one new job when he/she became Chairman, Chairwoman, CEO, President or Sole Proprietor of his/her own business.

Again, no s/he did not. The entrepreneur who becomes a “Chairman, Chairwoman, CEO, President or Sole Proprietor of his/her own business” does so regardless of how much intellectual property he or she owns. Whether or not the entrepreneur has 1 or 100 patents to his or her name has no effect on the entrepreneur’s status as the chief executive of his or her business.

Once again, your “fact” lacks a logical basis, and it certainly lacks an evidentiary basis.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

AI: True, but that does not change the fact that the new entrepreneur created at least one new job when he/she became Chairman, Chairwoman, CEO, President or Sole Proprietor of his/her own business.

I can incorporate a dozen companies this afternoon and create a dozen new “jobs” for myself. I don’t even need a single patent to do it. Getting a patent would probably be a distraction and an unnecessary expense anyway.

Why hasn’t Obama thought of this? He could have achieved full employment overnight.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

And since you still don’t seem to get it, ping, it means that I don’t have to provide cites for mundane, non-controversial propositions (although I understand this is a prosecution strategy for a certain breed of attorney/agent).

As a result, implicit or explicit reasonable arguments for invalidity resting in whole or in part on such mundane, non-controversial propositions remain reasonable, with or without the cite. Of course that is not going mean anything to your patent texbagger friends who choose to stick their heads in the sand and discriminately genuflect only before the PTO’s decisions that lead to a granted patent, while disparaging all else.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

And since it’s a fact that every patent earned by a new entrepreneur creates at least one new job the middle class can’t get started soon enough.

Back up. When did “every patent earned by a new entrepreneur creates at least one new job” become a fact? Last I checked, one did not need a patent in order to be an entrepreneur. I also know that even a new entrepreneur can obtain multiple patents that do not affect said entrepreneur’s ability to employ people. So, unless said “new job” belongs to a lawyer or patent agent, I don’t see how your purported fact has any logical basis, let alone any evidentiary basis.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Even though we cannot describe comment on the Bilski question, I think the most important question remaining from Bilski is why the Bilski claims are abstract. The court never seemed to answer the very issue on appeal except by stating the result.

Cataloguing the Wurst of the PTO is hardly a worthless endeavor. If nothing else, it’s a handy reference for those seeking to demonstrate the rank incompetence of the PTO when it comes to examining certain software and “business” methods.

Contrast my endeavor with whatever it is you think you’re doing, ping. You’re not a very good referee, you’re not amusing, and when it comes to sxcking up to corporate interests, AI has you beat by a mile.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

ping What might look like an ordinary word to you or I may have a nuanced meaning for others.

Except you provide no examples of such a “nuanced” word in any of the claims I posted. Nice try, ping. Keep flailing. And don’t forget when you start lookin like a total jxckxss, you can always throw on a new sock.

I think ya waste a lotta time getting and posting that stuff.

It took me very little time, ping. You really don’t pay attention, do you? The stripes are on your referee outfit are starting to run.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

“Anyway, glad to see you and TINLA have given up trying to defend the crxp claims I posted above.”

C’mon Sunshine – I aint given up – I never started.

Ya gotta be careful with that straw of yours – that be flammible stuff ya know.

As for the tech jargon – ya gotta know that the spec and art field influence the jargon. What might look like an ordinary word to you or I may have a nuanced meaning for others.

Personally, I think ya waste a lotta time getting and posting that stuff. It’s not like anyone cares what you think and whether a handful of claims posted here without context really really show the Office puts out crrp patents. I am sure if I cared (at all) I would have no problem delving into your beloved art field and posting all kinds of crrp patents.

Sides which – it detracts from the real chuckle posts of yours.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

ping to think of it, he don’t provide citations all that often at all anymore.

Why are citations needed when all parties agree that a statement is “common knowledge.”

Anyway, glad to see you and TINLA have given up trying to defend the crxp claims I posted above. More to come next week. Or do you think this week was an aberration? I didn’t spend much time looking but I can spend a bit more if you need further evidence of the PTO’s shortcomings.

Consider the following: there is very little technical jargon recited in these claims. And yet the PTO still couldn’t deal with them properly. Do you think claims with a lot of technical jargon would be examined *more* carefully by the same Examiners (or by Examiners with the same level of education and experience as the Examiners who handled these applications)?

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Dennis (or anyone else), how much USPTO maintenance fee revenue is estimated that “33% more utility patents in 2010 than it did in 2009” bring into the USPTO at each of the maintenance fee due dates?

Just about all the USPTO problems in the past few years stemmed from a lack of money (kept within the USPTO). Glad to see the USPTO finally wised up at about the same time there was a change in leadership. Ya think there is a connection between the two?

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

I done made it clear (and convincing) that Homey don’t do answers, Sunshine.

Maybe ya can ask Ned, cepts he aint been doin his homework lately. Come to think of it, he don’t provide citations all that often at all anymore. I guess when yours truly makes such insightful observations that rip those citations to shreds, Ol Ned just don’t wanna play no more.

Hey Malcolm, ya forgot to call someone a putz for not reading something today. What’s up with that?

“It’s the comment section of a blog.”

Don’t we know it – look at the people they let in here.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

You articulated cr@p. You didn’t cite to anything beyond common knowledge. Your inability to even attempt to understand what is being claimed beyond some generic concept is a sad commentary on your legal skills. FYI — you have to read the f&*king claims. You didn’t even attempt to construe the language of the claims.

If you think that “common knowledge” is all that is necessary to invalidate a patent, you are going to be ranting and raving about ‘dubious’ patents on this blog until the day they put you into the ground. Scratch that, given the lack of complexity to your arguments, it should be fairly easy to create some type of computer script to spout your nonsense even after you are gone.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

My post got eaten. But it went something like this. I remember hearing someone say, first thing is not to hurt myself.
Do you think I didn’t know what you were trying to do? But I tried to tell you.
I have so much more to share. Did you get your million. Or was it denied on default?

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

“You too, ping? You seem hung up on as well. Try defending 7,806,329.”

Nah, I aint hung up at all – Even minding Homey don’t do answers, I just don’t care enough to bother with the claims and spec (there be a good point about needing to read the spec too Sunshine). Iza just getting my chuckles on your posting style.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

it takes somebody with a little intelligence to articulate a legitimate reason why.

I did articulate a legitimate reason. So did IANAE.

It’s not my problem if you can’t read and/or you refuse to accept that a granted patent claim isn’t as wonderful as you belive it is.

And again: if you disagree that methods of accepting money and placing wagers to play a game of chance aren’t very old, then just say so. I’m happy to educate you provided that you need the education and give me an idea as to just how remedial the education needs to be.

Let’s hear it. You too, ping? You seem hung up on as well. Try defending 7,806,329.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

AI: You ASSume???? There has to be more than an assumption in order invalidate a patent as anticipated under 102 of the statute. So once again, where is the prior art?? If you can’t produce then you are simply talking out of your ASSume as usual.

Posted by: Malcolm Mooney | Oct 05, 2010 at 02:23 PM

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

“I really do wonder why this anon doofus is so keyed up about this ridiculous claim?”

I couldn’t care less about the claim — it is your feeble attempt to somehow establish that this claim should have not been allowed to issue that I enjoy lampooning.

A bottom 5% examiner does a better job than you in articulating an anticipation/obviousness analysis. Again, your continued failure to evidence some appreciation of the law does not reflect well on your commentary. Any doofus can assert that a patent is cr@p — it takes somebody with a little intelligence to articulate a legitimate reason why. Unforunately for you, when they were passing out intelligence, you were still standing in line for snark.

Analysis like yours may pass muster with the Glenn Beck crowd, but we here appreciate something more than the rantings and ravings of a madman.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Right. Or maybe the real problem is that the middle class isn’t investing enough of their money in real estate.

Posted by: Malcolm Mooney | Oct 05, 2010 at 07:40 PM

___________

No, we are talking about Intellectual Property. The only true property you ever really own. And since it’s a fact that every patent earned by a new entrepreneur creates at least one new job the middle class can’t get started soon enough.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

The middle class is growing bored, fat and lazy sitting around waiting for the industrial age to return with its auto plants and other manufacturing jobs…. the sooner they get off their cans and start using their brains to invent innovative new processes that win broad claims from the USPTO, the sooner they can enter the quantum age for universal wealth.

Right. Or maybe the real problem is that the middle class isn’t investing enough of their money in real estate.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Article makes it quite clear why inflating a patent bubble will accomplish absolutely nothing to help the economy. It will of course put more money into the pockets of the wealthiest 5% or so (attorneys mainly) and give investors something to play with. In other words, the status quo for the past several decades, with wealth concentrating in the hands of the few while the middle class becomes poorer, will be effectively promoted by the Kappos Patent Plan.

Enjoy.

Posted by: Malcolm Mooney | Oct 05, 2010 at 02:19 PM
————————————-

Actually this article underscores the importance of a healthy patent system that promotes and rewards innovation and provides incentive for more Actual Inventors that we need to stimulate and continue economic growth.

The middle class is growing bored, fat and lazy sitting around waiting for the industrial age to return with its auto plants and other manufacturing jobs.

The sooner they realize those jobs are not coming back the better. And that hating the wealthy is not going to make them feel any better and certainly not going to make them wealthy.

And the sooner they get off their cans and start using their brains to invent innovative new processes that win broad claims from the USPTO, the sooner they can enter the quantum age for universal wealth.

So hurry middle America, the Moonies of the world have been defeated and fat royalty checks and licensing fees await! And yes our attorneys will get rich too, but aint that America!

Ain’t it grand 😀

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Except that you completely missed the point. The point is that his patent is invalid, someone else’s patent is valid, and you’re letting the invalid one prevent the valid one from doing what patents are supposed to do.

Look at it from the other guy’s perspective, the one with the valid patent, and apply your own logic. Maybe he’ll go out of business because his patent is worthless, because he can’t get royalties or an injunction, because his competitor is using an invalid patent and a threat of litigation as leverage to score a free license.

Invalid patents do nothing but weaken the patent system for everybody.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

“It’s not the invalidity of his own patent under the preponderance of the evidence standard when it would have survived under the clear and convincing standard that will force him out of business, it’s the validity of someone else’s patent under the preponderance of the evidence standard.

^^^FIXT^^^

“I really do wonder why this anon doofus is so keyed up about this ridiculous claim? He even has to hide behind a sock puppet to talk about it. Weird.”

Says the Master of Sockpuppets. Ironic.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

It may be a statement of fact, but it is still crxp analysis. There is a difference between making findings of fact that are marginally related to the claimed invention and establishing that the claimed invention, as a whole, is either anticipated or rendered obvious by the applied prior art. Also, try to refer to the claim language when you are making your weak attempt at an analysis. To do otherwise just reinforces everybody’s low opinion of your legal acumen.

When you get a chance, read KSR — all of it, not just the frequently-cited snippets. SCOTUS went into considerable detail as to the findings of fact that were being relied upon (although the technical details may be beyond your comprehension).

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Since:
(1) the just-released statistical study of all recent multiply-asserted patents by Prof. Lemley and associates proves that even these “..most litigated – and putatively most valuable – patents win in court only 10.7% of the time”; and
(2) neverthless, patent trolls and their lawsuits and incomes are booming;
(3) Successfully litigating against an invalid patent averages more than a million dollars;
(4) how can one deny that invalid patents do not have considerable financial value? Even for hard cash, much less for trading?

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

As he says, an invalid patent will not support a cross-licensing agreement and will force the holder of the invalid patent out of business.

It’s not the invalidity of his own patent that will force him out of business, it’s the validity of someone else’s patent. That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

If his patent should be invalidated, what it’s really doing is unfairly preventing someone else with a valid patent from getting the infringement remedy to which he is legally entitled. That’s exactly the opposite of what the patent system is supposed to do, and what it promotes is the stockpiling of dubiously-valid “defensive” patents rather than actual innovation. It’s an excellent fact scenario for showing that granting and upholding invalid patents weakens the patent system and harms actual inventors.

I’m not sure why he’s saying that invalid patents are a valid way of obtaining cross-licenses, and that it’s “how the system is designed to encourage innovation”, but I’m pretty sure that’s what he’s saying.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

“You put in your nickel, you make a wager of some sort, and you play the game. Older than the hills.”

Cr_p analysis like that isn’t even accepted at the USPTO

It’s not “crxp analysis.” It’s a statement of fact. Can you please confirm that you disagree with the statement so I can make sure everyone here knows just how naive (willfully or otherwise) you really are?

Thanks.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

“And do you not see how invalidation of a patent used for defensive purposes can put the patentee out of business? They need that patent to be held valid so they can force their competitor to cross license the patents that they both need to use. That’s how the system is designed to encourage innovation,”

I think he’s saying that cross-licensing agreements between competitors are incentives to innovate and obtain valid patents. As he says, an invalid patent will not support a cross-licensing agreement and will force the holder of the invalid patent out of business. I don’t believe what he’s written could be reasonably read to argue that invalid patents promote innovation by giving rise to cross-licensing agreements.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

See, that’s exactly the reason I linked to his post. Draw your own conclusions:

“And do you not see how invalidation of a patent used for defensive purposes can put the patentee out of business? They need that patent to be held valid so they can force their competitor to cross license the patents that they both need to use. That’s how the system is designed to encourage innovation,”

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

“I’m just performing a public service by highlighting the failures of Kappos and his PTO.”

Saying a patent should not have been issued without explaining exactly why is just QQing. Unless you’ve got specific 102/103 art to cite, you’ve got nothing.

“You put in your nickel, you make a wager of some sort, and you play the game. Older than the hills.”
Cr_p analysis like that isn’t even accepted at the USPTO where even the most pathetic of rejections are rubber-stamped.

“If TINLA is to be believed, invalid patents are very important because they allow their owners to force other people to cross-license valid patents.”
Of course, Tinla never wrote what you attributed to him — nice strawman. Your “invalid patents” is yet another example of a factually-unsupported assumption made by the anti-patent vermin that inhabit this blog.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

And just to be clear, I see that a device is mentioned in the claim. But the claim is a method claim. It would appear that some “device” needs to be used in the method by the putative infringer, although the plain lanugage of the claim doesn’t require the “device” to do anything except provide a game of chance and “display credits.” Devices have been doing that for a long time.

So what’s new here that could possibly make this method patentable?

We all know the answer. Some of us just won’t admit it. And we know why they won’t admit it. Rhymes with “rockhome pindrome.”

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Or does your attempt to pun on a “dime a dozen” reveal that you thought the donlar was the lowest standard denomination?

A dime a dozen is less than a penny each, FYI. I wonder if an aphorism can constitute prior art.

Besides, how is it not obvious to offer a service at a different price, when the service already exists? In any other art, the examiner wouldn’t even bother citing a reference. He’d say the claim is obvious because you’re varying a known parameter in a known way (plenty of real-life things cost less than a penny) with predictable results.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

You know of a prior art gambling device that permits people to bet fractions of a penny?

What difference can it possibly make **for patentability purposes** whether the ‘credit’ is called a quarter-penny or a blimfab or a quatloo? You put in your nickel, you make a wager of some sort, and you play the game. Older than the hills.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

The game of chance, presumably. Since credit values less than a smallest denomination for standard currency are a dime a dozen.

Really? You know of a prior art gambling device that permits people to bet fractions of a penny? Or does your attempt to pun on a “dime a dozen” reveal that you thought the donlar was the lowest standard denomination? Perhaps you should try reading the specification before judging the claims, or is that your Examiner training kicking in (or Mooney’s hand up your wee puppet tookas)?

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

The Patent Office definitely needs to hire (or reassign) Malcolm to quickly review allowed (but not yet issued) claims and to give his seat-of-the-patents opinion as to whether they were erroneously allowed. He can use his remarkable gift to accurate advise the Patent Office of its mistakes without Malcolm knowing the prior art or reading the specification.

Alternatively, those seeking to invalidate patents can hire him as an expert consultant.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Malcolm: Why should “clear and convincing” evidence be required to invalidate when patents like these are issuing every week?

If TINLA is to be believed, invalid patents are very important because they allow their owners to force other people to cross-license valid patents. That way, just because someone else’s patent is valid, it doesn’t mean you have to avoid infringement or pay for a license or anything.

That is evidently known in our line of work as “promoting innovation”.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Article makes it quite clear why inflating a patent bubble will accomplish absolutely nothing to help the economy. It will of course put more money into the pockets of the wealthiest 5% or so (attorneys mainly) and give investors something to play with. In other words, the status quo for the past several decades, with wealth concentrating in the hands of the few while the middle class becomes poorer, will be effectively promoted by the Kappos Patent Plan.

Enjoy.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

I just searched the PTO employment postings. There are twenty open positions for patent examiners/attorneys. Eight of them are GS-5 entry level positions. Although with starting salary around $42K, I don’t see how the PTO is going to be able to attract qualified examiners/attorneys to the very expensive DC area.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

System and method for providing activation and expiration data associated with newly issued financial presentation devices

1. A method for determining activation of newly issued financial presentation devices that replace existing financial presentation devices, each financial presentation device being presentable for conducting a transaction with a merchant providing goods or services, the method comprising:

receiving an account identifier for an existing financial presentation device;

determining, from an account update database, a new expiration date associated with a newly issued financial presentation device, which replaces the existing financial presentation device identified by the received account identifier;

retrieving, from a transaction database, transaction data associated with the received account identifier; and

determining, from the retrieved transaction data, whether an expiration date associated with the transaction data matches the new expiration date determined by the account update database for indicating activation status of the newly issued financial presentation device.

“Financial presentation device.” LOL.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

1. A computer implemented method of processing a transaction for a customer, the method comprising:

receiving a request for a reward transaction in a computer system;

formatting a reward transaction message in the computer system for the reward transaction;

sending the reward transaction message to an
issuing bank with the computer system;

receiving a verification response from the issuing bank with the computer system, the verification response including information on at least two other accounts available to the customer from the issuing bank if a rewards account associated with the customer does not cover the transaction; and

querying the customer with the computer system via a user interface for a selection as to which of the at least two other accounts from the issuing bank to use to complete the reward transaction.

Question: why have patent laws at all if the PTO refuses to apply them?

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

And in case it wasn’t clear to you, ping, if you take the $200,000,000 taken away by Congress (earmarked for programs that have nothing to do with patents) and add back the roughly $129,000,000 Census surplus that went to PTO, there is your $70,000,000.

The $129,000,000 credit to PTO was officially passed into law as P.L. 111-224 in August. That is why PTO is now able to hire brand new people but could only bring in ex-examiners for the first half of 2010. PTO’s budget and fee collections are determined by Congress, which you don’t seem to realize.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

in fact, the Office had to give back some 70 Million Dollars (said in a Dr. Evil-pinkie-to-mouth dialect) just last week

WOW. With that kind of spin, you should be a political talk show host. PTO has to “give back” the 70 million because they are not allowed to keep or use it, by US law. In other words, because Congress took it away.

Believe me, PTO would love to have hired new examiners with that 70 million, but they did not have the legal authority to spend it.

“It’s not a question of finding people to hire. It’s that Congress took away $200,000,000 of the PTO’s money”

Flat out wrong Chris – in fact, the Office had to give back some 70 Million Dollars (said in a Dr. Evil-pinkie-to-mouth dialect) just last week that the Office couldn’t spend because it lacked workers to spend it on.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

And why does the Office problem with attracting workers continue through one of the worst financial and job-outlook periods of the modern era?

It’s not a question of finding people to hire. It’s that Congress took away $200,000,000 of the PTO’s money, so they could not afford to hire and train new examiners. The only job postings for the first half of 2010 were for people with patent examining experience. The vast majority of the hires in 2010 so far have been former examiners who have come out of retirement or left practice to return to PTO. They received almost no training during their current stint working at PTO.

Only after PTO was allowed to take the Census Bureau’s excess $129,000,000 were they able to hire new examiners that they would have to train.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Dennis, your contributer called Malcolm Mooney (whose postings I cherish) has already asked you to take out the clown who lacks any sense of humor, and who recently has come to the idea of posting under the same pseudonym (see above). I add my request to that of the real Malcolm Mooney.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Malcolm, no worries, the year’s increase in issuances does not mean patent quality has sufferred. These are just all the good patents that haven’t been allowed to issue in the past 4 years. The issue rate will level once these have all issued.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Don’t forget – the expectancies of all those who were baby examiners a few years ago are going up, as they get promoted and get sig authority, so the number of FAOMs and allowances they have to do will be increasing as well.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply